Saturday, May 10, 2014

An assortment of statistics suggest that white America is deteriorating on several counts. Standard propaganda narratives invoke a victim comparison- on one side virtuous, suffering white people, and on the other, "pampered" minorities who are getting "giveaway" government programs beyond measure. Such narratives are dubious however as detailed below. As will be seen though, some key indicators of deterioration are very real. Here is some current data for example on white out-of-wedlock births. As can be seen

Putative white "role models" are unimpressive on numerous counts as hard data shows, For example, here are some stats on white out-of-wedlock patterns, as reported circa 2012. Whites post a 50% out-of-wedlock rate for under 30 white women with no college- 29% white out-of-wedlock overall, figures worse than blacks prior to the welfare state era of the mid and late 1960s.

Which brings us to some current data from an article by Nicholas Eberstadt, on deterioration of white America. The author calls for a new Moynihan Report to find out why, and suggests that there has been little attention to this crisis from the media and policymakers. Heriditarian Charles Murray points out similar patterns of white deteriorating in his book Coming Apart. It should be noted however that such deterioration, or such patters are nothing new, whether it be on the marriage, crime, abortion and other fronts. They have always been in place- though obscured by the demonization of a black "Other" - a bogeyman that diverts attention away from the underlying problems in many white communities. Below is an excerpt. The full article is here.

-------------------------------------

White Families Are in Trouble, Too

With More Absent Fathers and Poverty, It's Time for a New
Moynihan Report

Nicholas Eberstadt | Dallas
News

August 21, 2005

Forty years after the Moynihan report, the tragic saga of
the modern black family is common knowledge. But the tale of family breakdown
in modern America
is no longer a story delimited to a single ethnic minority. Today the family is
also in crisis for this country's ethnic majority: the so-called white American
population.

The crisis in the white family has attracted curiously
little attention from commentators and policymakers. Yet by many of the
criteria of the Moynihan report, today's white American family looks to be at
least as troubled as the black family of the early 1960s.

Consider trends in out-of-wedlock births. By 2002, 28.5
percent of babies of white mothers were born outside marriage in this country.
Over the past generation, the white illegitimacy rate has exploded, quadrupling
since 1975, when the level was 7.1 percent. The overall illegitimacy rate for
whites is higher than it was for black mothers (23.6 percent) when the Moynihan
report sounded its alarm.

Moreover, with 75 percent-plus of their babies born outside
marriage, white teens now have much higher illegitimacy rates than the black
American teens of the early and mid-1960s. Indeed, in 2002, a white mother
younger than 30 was more likely to have an illegitimate child than a black
mother was in 1970.

White illegitimacy rates look somewhat lower if the
non-Hispanic white population is examined apart from Hispanic Americans. Even
so, in 2002, the illegitimacy rate for "white Anglos"--as
Euro-Americans are sometimes called--was 23 percent--virtually identical to
levels 40 years earlier for black mothers.

Today no state in the Union has an
Anglo illegitimacy ratio as low as 10 percent. Even in predominantly Mormon
Utah, every eighth non-Hispanic white infant is born out of wedlock.

What about family instability and fatherlessness? As of
2001, according to a U.S. Census Bureau study released earlier this month,
every fifth white child under 18 was living in a single-parent home. Roughly a
third of America's
white children, furthermore, were living in a home without both biological
parents--and 2 percent to 3 percent of white children lived with neither
biological parent. Here again, white American trends have reached Moynihan
report levels.

The "tangle of pathology" described in the
Moynihan report is also increasingly apparent in white America.
Welfare dependence, for example, is far more prevalent among white families
than is commonly appreciated. Notwithstanding the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, as
of 2002, roughly 29 percent of white children and nearly 24 percent of Anglo
children lived in families accepting at least one form of means-tested public
assistance. In other words, welfare program participation rates among white
children today are close to twice as high as they were among black children at
the time of the Moynihan report.

And despite a decade of dropping crime statistics,
criminality is leaving a growing mark on white youth. As of 2004, 1.6 percent
of all Anglo men in their 20s and 30s were behind bars--roughly twice the rate
as recently as 1980.

Prescient as it was, in retrospect we can see that the
Moynihan report was off the mark in one key respect. It suggested that family
breakdown was a distinctive problem for African-Americans due to their unique
and painful legacy of slavery and racial discrimination. The scars of American
racism, however, can hardly explain the disintegration of white families in America
over the past four decades--much less the growing instability of families in
affluent democracies on other continents.

At this writing, for example, the illegitimacy ratio has
topped 40 percent in both France
and Britain,
and more than 20 percent of Germany's
families with children are headed by single parents. And across the Pacific,
"Asian values" no longer confer blanket inoculation against family
decay: In 2003, South Korea
recorded 56 divorces for every 100 marriages.

Clearly, the crisis of the family is not just a "black thing.----------- END EXCERPT----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that brings us to 2 more points:

Alleged white "sufferahs" are themselves profiting from so-called 'giveways' like welfare, while limiting similarly situated blacks. One thing wrong with this narrative is that the putative white sufferahs have full access to the alleged "giveaways" and have profited by them. Let's take welfare for example. Data shows that in states with high white populations, welfare benefits are more generous compared to areas with high minority populations. Indeed, from 1960 to 1990 for example, states with larger black welfare populations offered significantly LOWER welfare benefits, than in states with larger white populations. In essence, relatively more affluent white welfare recipients saw greater amounts of aid given than blacks proportionately in said states (See Gerald C. Wright. 1977. “Racism and Welfare Policy in America.” Social Science Quarterly 57(3): 718-30; Christopher Howard. 1999. “Field Essay: American Welfare State or States?.” Political Research Quarterly). Here's some more data:

"Hostility to blacks is obviously more serious than hostility to Hispanics, and extends to the under-provision of such public goods as sewers and police in counties with high average incomes in the black population.. the percentage of blacks who are poor is positively associated with the number of welfare recipients and negatively associated with the average payment (indicating lower per recipient payments to blacks than to other groups."

"The percentage of African-American population had a negative effect on the average monthly grant. Therefore those states with higher African-American populations, especially the South, had lower monthly grant amounts.. Grant amounts for African- Americans in the South were significantly lower that those for whites, ranging from 7.3 percent less in Washington. D.C. to 37.6 percent less in South Carolina."
--Deborah Ward. 2009. The White Welfare State, p 77. 121

And here's another study of how whites, who are much wealthier than blacks, get more generous treatment at the welfare rolls (Durr and Hill 2006):

"To determine if the negative association between single-mother families and AFDC generosity is dependent on race, I incorporate the percentage of the population that is black into the model.. Doing so significantly improves our models in 1980 and 1990, as states with relatively large black populations have less generous AFDC payments... states with a larger percentage of black single-mother families have less generous welfare spending, while states with a larger proportion of white single-mother families offer more generous welfare spending.. These findings suggest that black and white families are granted uneven support by AFDC, or more specifically that the racial component of single parents in a state influences that state's generosity."-Marlese Durr and Shirley Hill (2006) Race, Work, and Family in the Lives of African Americans. 125-129

Nor is this anything new. It goes back to the much touted "New Deal" and even before. When unemployment insurance was enacted in 1935, for example, it did not extend to agricultural and domestic workers, whom reformers did not see as independent, full-time breadwinners, and on whom the Souths low-wage economy depended. As a result, 55 percent of all African American workers and 87 percent of all wage-earning African American women were excluded from one of the chief benefits of the New Deal. (Dowd, J (2005) The Long Civil Rights Movement and the Political Uses of
the Past. Jrn AmerHist 91:4)

Likewise the GI Bill, an ostensibly color-blind initiative, unfairly privileged white veterans by turning benefits administration over to local governments, thereby ensuring that Southern blacks would find it nearly impossible to participate, or would be sandbagged and hindered by halfhearted Jim Crow regimes, though some money did grudgingly go to some Negro colleges. Likewise postwar policies in housing provided a fulsome suite of resources to help whites attain home-ownership but marginalized blacks via limiting loan access or steering blacks into areas with sub-standard or deteriorating housing stock as a requirement for receiving any government help at all. (Ira Katznelson (2005) When Affirmative Action Was White)

Finally, black self-help accomplished most of the heavy lifting without needing white benevolence in the form of "quotas." Indeed, the majority blacks had pulled themselves ABOVE the poverty line BEFORE the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the substantiative implementation of Affirmative Action in the 1970s as Sowell 2004, 1981, 1983, 2005 shows.

In short, white America is experiencing deteriorating on several counts, and several of these counts are not anything new calling into question the hypocritical "role model" postures of many. Thus the pious narrative of piteous white sufferahs laboring under the burdens of alleged "favors" done "minorities," continues to be bogus.

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

Across the web, a steady propaganda drumbeat proclaims a virtuous narrative. In one corner, innocent white people, paragons of "merit", and in the other- "undeserving minorities" who gain what they gain by oppressive "quotas" or "preferences." The drumbeat echoes the racialist Pioneer Fund's fulsome support of assorted "hereditarian" or "biodiversity" scholars- in turn fully endorsed by more innocuous, grandfatherly looking supporters like Charles Murray. But the music is not all it seems. The record shows that the alleged paragons of "merit" were anything but. This post draws on excerpts taken from Harvard Professor Daria Roithmayr's recent book: Reproducing Racism: How Everyday Choices Lock In White Advantage.

Rothmayr's argument is in favor of recasting "affirmative action" as an "anti-trust" anti-cartel measure, presumably allowing more mobilization of support. I find her notion problematic as a solution to the problem of racial monopolies or cartels. More "diversity" - however it is relabeled ("cartel" or no) is unlikely to gain much traction in today's skittish post-Affirmative Action environment. There are also deficiencies in the educational and skill pipelines, which are not producing the volume of qualified minority competitors in social, work and educational marketplaces, particularly among black males. Rather than focus on yet another round of "diversity", resources might be better spent on producing more from that pipeline.If there is $50,000 to blow for example, why spend it on another middle class "diversity coordinator" in some bureaucracy, or talking points "diversity seminar" where already well heeled people get paid, rather than say on hard-nosed Asian style tutoring at the grassroots that would benefit hundreds of struggling black kids directly? There seems to be plenty of money for assorted "diversity" structures but little for other things that might more directly benefit those who need help most. See Heather MacDonald's critique of bloated 'diversity' structures in academia here.

Roithmayr
does nevertheless do a service in documenting the existence of racial cartels. Contrary to those who extol the benefits of pure competition as leading to "the end of racism", she shows, like others before her, that ANTI-competitive white racial cartels paid off handsomely for white people in US history. Rothmayr details below for example how white unions conducted strikes to force companies to fire productive black workers. Result: less competition, greater white wages, income and opportunity. This pattern is contrary to the propaganda narrative of virtuous white "merit" holding sway. Let's take a look at alleged white "role models" of "merit" and how they operated:

"On a cold winter morning in Memphis,
in January of 1919 a committee of four white switchman marched into the office
of one Edward Bodamer, superintendent of the Yahoo and Mississippi Valley
Railroad. The switchmen were there they said to discuss a demand by the area
yard workers, fire all black workers or they would strike. Bodamer threw the
switchman out of his office, warning them as they left that a strike would be
illegal. Ignoring the warning, dozens of switchmen in yard men walked off the job
in protest. Over the next five days, the strike spread like wildfire. Work at
surrounding railroads and yards ground to a halt, shutting down the region's
transportation network and crippling the railroads operations. At its peak, the
strike united over 650 white switchman in racial solidarity, shutting down
transportation in the countless small towns that lined the railroad in Tennessee,
Mississippi, and Illinois.
At the end of the fifth day, the switchman call a halt to the walk out, but
only after the railroad have promised investigation my government mediators.
For the time being the black workers remained.

A year later, the white switchman were back in Bodamer
office. This time, they had additional firepower, having gotten the backing of
the Brotherhood Of Railroad Trainmen, one of the big four railroad
Brotherhoods. Unable to risk another damaging strike, Bodamer and the railroad
caved to the switchmen's demands and fired almost all of the company's black
workers. At the committee's insistence, the railroad also adopted racially
restricted contracts that changed seniority systems and entrance requirements, that
limited the number of black workers for a particular position.*(Cite: Eric
and Sam, Brotherhood of color black railroad workers and the struggle for
equality 65-69. The success of the strike in Memphis
signaled a major shift for the railroad industry. Nationwide after this strike,
white unions begin to regularly demand racially restrictive contractual clauses
and most railroad union contracts begin to carry them.)"

-------------------------------------------

"How did white workers earn higher wages from discriminating? Classic collective action explains these wages as a sort of monopoly profit. By forming a union that excluded black workers and by pushing employers to hire whites only, white railroad workers could drive up wages relative to their black and brown counterparts. Employers also profited from discrimination in their fight against unions. By dividing the labor market in two, railroads maintained a ready-made stable of black strikebreakers perpetually on call to undercut the power of the white union. For railroad and workers alike, then, discrimination was win-win. And those benefits came at the expense of black workers, in the same way that cartels displace the costs of their profits onto someone else."--Daria Roithmayr. 2014. Reproducing Racism: How Everyday Choices Lock In White Advantage. pg 25-37

Roithmayr
also notes how profitable these racial cartels were and are as the gains made earlier are carried forward and passed down:

"But the lock-in story of racial disparity highlights a number of things about racial inequality that conventional explanations obscure. First, the lock-in model highlights the profits that whites earned from racial exclusion during Jim Crow. Economics scholars have always assumed that racism would die out because discriminating was too costly. On the contrary, the lock-in model demonstrates that racism can pay off, and did so handsomely during Jim Crow. Chapters 2 and 3 describe the profit-maximizing behavior of Jim Crow 'racial cartels': - homeowners' associations, labor unions, political parties, school districts, and other groups that worked to generate monopoly profits by excluding competitors. By coordinating to keep the neighborhood pure, white homeowners' associations were able to keep for themselves the best houses, in the best neighborhoods, with the wealthiest neighbors. By excluding black and brown children from public schools, whites monopolized the best public education from themselves. By dividing the labor market into two racially identifiable segments, white unions earned the highest wages, in the most prestigious jobs. In the South, whites had a monopoly lock on political power for decades. As these chapters illustrate, during the era of Jim Crow, discrimination paid off quite well."--Daria Roithmayr. 2014. Reproducing Racism: How Everyday Choices Lock In White Advantage. pg 25-37

This post makes no brief for shaky "diversity" systems and in fact questions the resources being diverted there, rather than being spent directly with the masses at ground level, on specific projects that will improve outcomes in education, skill, talent and work. The pipeline of talent and skill should be the ultimate focus. The situation is somewhat analogous to well-heeled western consultants and bureaucrats jetting in to poor Third World nations to hold yet another round of seminars or workshops, while outside the toiling masses see no resources or cash on the ground that benefits the grassroots. The bureaucrats get paid, not the masses. Nevertheless the wide propaganda narrative about alleged white "merit" compared to minorities allegedly "getting things handed to them" is exposed as bogus, by a clear-eyed look at the reality of racial cartels and monopolies, and how they have and still benefit those holding the controlling levers..

Interestingly enough, "affirmative action" began as a measure to benefit whites, namely white union members who were discriminated against due to union membership. Courts realized that merely telling discriminators to "please stop" was inadequate and that enforcement remedies were needed. There was little objection when whites were benefiting from such remedies. QUOTE:

"The general principle behind "affirmative action" is that a court order to "cease and desist" from some discriminatory practice may not be sufficient to undo the harm already done, or even to prevent additional harm as the result of a pattern of events set in motion by the prior illegal activity. This general principle goes back much further than the civil-rights legislation of the 1960's, and extends well beyond questions involving ethnic minorities or women. In 1935, the Wagner Act prescribed "affirmative action" as well as "cease and desist" remedies against employers whose anti-union activities had violated the law. Thus, in the landmark Jones and Laughlin Steel case which established the constitutionality of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board ordered the company not only to stop discriminating against those of its employees who were union members, but also to post notices to that effect in conspicuous places and to reinstate unlawfully discharged workers, with back pay. Had the company merely been ordered to "cease and desist" from economic (and physical) retaliation against union members,the future effect of its past intimidation would have continued to inhibit the free-choice elections guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act.

Racial discrimination is another obvious area where merely to "cease and desist" is not enough. If a firm has engaged in racial discrimination for years, and has an all-white work force as a result, then simply to stop explicit discrimination will mean little as long as the firm continues to hire by word-of-mouth referrals to its current employees' friends and relatives. (Many firms hire in just this way, regardless of their racial policies.) Clearly, the area of racial discrimination is one in which positive or affirmative steps of some kind seem reasonable-which is not to say that the particular policies actually followed make sense."
--Sowell, Thomas (1975) Affirmative Action Reconsidered. The Public Interest 3, pg 48-65

When Affirmative Action Was White- (2005) author Katznelson traces history to show that goals, timetables and quotas were specifically put in place to benefit whites at the expense of blacks beginning in the New Deal era. Indeed such quotas were embraced by southern whites with the specific understanding that they would benefit and not blacks. In program after program, blacks were cut out of the loop and sidelined while whites garnered the benefits and filled body count quotas. Katznelson shows how this was accomplished while whites used a seemingly "race neutral" approach. EXCERPT from some book reviews:"Rather than seeing affirmative action developing out of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, Katznelson
finds its origins in the New Deal policies of the 1930s and 1940s. And
instead of seeing it as a leg up for minorities, Katznelson argues that
the prehistory of affirmative action was supported by Southern Democrats
who were actually devoted to preserving a strict racial hierarchy, and
that the resulting legislation was explicitly designed for the majority:
its policies made certain, he argues, that whites received the full
benefit of rising prosperity while blacks were deliberately left out.
Katznelson supports this startling claim ingeniously, showing, for
instance, that while the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act was a great boon
for factory workers, it did nothing for maids and agricultural
laborers—employment sectors dominated by blacks at the time—at the
behest of Southern politicians. Similarly, Katznelson makes a strong
case that the GI Bill, an ostensibly color-blind initiative, unfairly
privileged white veterans by turning benefits administration over to
local governments, thereby ensuring that Southern blacks would find it
nearly impossible to participate...Katznelson places into contemporary context the cause of racial inequity
that is directly related to government policies, which are widely
believed to benefit blacks but which have actually benefited whites. He
eschews the more generalist focus on slavery and white supremacy as the
causes of racial inequality and focuses on government policies of the
New Deal and post-World War II distribution of veteran benefits. He
identifies in a practical sense government policies, most of which
appear neutral on their face, that were designed to restrict blacks and,
in fact, impeded them from progressing commensurate with white America.
The war economy and labor needs expanded opportunities for blacks and
substantially reduced economic disparities. But postwar policies to
promote home ownership and labor laws regarding minimum wages
deliberately excluded blacks. Other policies providing the engine that
produced today's middle class, including the GI benefits that financed
college education, reinforced the discriminatory patterns...

From a NY Times review:This history has been told before, but Katznelson offers a penetrating new analysis, supported by vivid examples and statistics. He examines closely how the federal government discriminated against black citizens as it created and administered the sweeping social programs that provided the vital framework for a vibrant and secure American middle class. Considered revolutionary at the time, the new legislation included the Social Security system, unemployment compensation, the minimum wage, protection of the right of workers to join labor unions and the G.I. Bill of Rights.

Even though blacks benefited to a degree from many of these programs, Katznelson shows how and why they received far less assistance than whites did. He documents the political process by which powerful Southern Congressional barons shaped the programs in discriminatory ways -- as their price for supporting them. (A black newspaper editorial criticized Roosevelt for excluding from the minimum wage law the black women who worked long hours for $4.50 a week at the resort the president frequented in Warm Springs, Ga.)

At the time, most blacks in the labor force were employed in agriculture or as domestic household workers. Members of Congress from the Deep South demanded that those occupations be excluded from the minimum wage, Social Security, unemployment insurance and workmen's compensation. When labor unions scored initial victories in organizing poor factory workers in the South after World War II, the Southern Congressional leaders spearheaded legislation to cripple those efforts. The Southerners' principal objective, Katznelson contends, was to safeguard the racist economic and social order known as the Southern "way of life."Katznelson's principal focus is on the monumental social programs of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Harry Truman's Fair Deal in the 1930's and 1940's. He contends that those programs not only discriminated against blacks, but actually contributed to widening the gap between white and black Americans -- judged in terms of educational achievement, quality of jobs and housing, and attainment of higher income. Arguing for the necessity of affirmative action today, Katznelson contends that policy makers and the judiciary previously failed to consider just how unfairly blacks had been treated by the federal government in the 30 years before the civil rights revolution of the 1960's. I wrote about the impact of the G.I. Bill and segregated suburbia in "How Integrated is your neighborhood?" Katznelson goes much deeper into just how post WWII programs set the stage for minority exclusion from upward mobility. Katznelson reserves his harshest criticism for the unfair application of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, known as the G.I. Bill of Rights, a series of programs that poured $95 billion into expanding opportunity for soldiers returning from World War II. Over all, the G.I. Bill was a dramatic success, helping 16 million veterans attend college, receive job training, start businesses and purchase their first homes. Half a century later, President Clinton praised the G.I. Bill as ''the best deal ever made by Uncle Sam,'' and said it ''helped to unleash a prosperity never before known.''

But Katznelson demonstrates that African-American veterans received significantly less help from the G.I. Bill than their white counterparts. ''Written under Southern auspices,'' he reports, ''the law was deliberately designed to accommodate Jim Crow.'' He cites one 1940's study that concluded it was ''as though the G.I. Bill had been earmarked 'For White Veterans Only.' '' Southern Congressional leaders made certain that the programs were directed not by Washington but by local white officials, businessmen, bankers and college administrators who would honor past practices. As a result, thousands of black veterans in the South -- and the North as well -- were denied housing and business loans, as well as admission to whites-only colleges and universities. They were also excluded from job-training programs for careers in promising new fields like radio and electrical work, commercial photography and mechanics. Instead, most African-Americans were channeled toward traditional, low-paying ''black jobs'' and small black colleges, which were pitifully underfinanced and ill equipped to meet the needs of a surging enrollment of returning soldiers.

The statistics on disparate treatment are staggering. By October 1946, 6,500 former soldiers had been placed in non-farm jobs by the employment service in Mississippi; 86 percent of the skilled and semiskilled jobs were filled by whites, 92 percent of the unskilled ones by blacks. In New York and northern New Jersey, ''fewer than 100 of the 67,000 mortgages insured by the G.I. Bill supported home purchases by nonwhites.'' Discrimination continued as well in elite Northern colleges. The University of Pennsylvania, along with Columbia the least discriminatory of the Ivy League colleges, enrolled only 46 black students in its student body of 9,000 in 1946. The traditional black colleges did not have places for an estimated 70,000 black veterans in 1947. At the same time, white universities were doubling their enrollments and prospering with the infusion of public and private funds, and of students with their G.I. benefits."

Far from being for allegedly "exclusive" black benefit- Affirmative action has been long expanded other groups besides blacks- the case of so-called business "preferences"- Thomas Sowell

Conservative scholar Thomas Sowell 2004 in his study of preferential policies around the world notes that a particular tendency of such policies is to extend them to cover ever more classes and groups, some far beyond the original intended beneficiaries. White female beneficiaries are a typical casein point but Sowell notes that other groups- some relatively affluent or privileged foreigners have also been cashing in on programs ostensibly designed to help US Blacks. The propaganda machine however is conveniently light on such facts, with its bogus picture of allegedly "exclusive" benefit for "the blacks" even as whites and others, reap most of the benefit. Now where have we seen such right-wing distortion before? QUOTE:

"Because minority immigrants are eligible for affirmative action, even though they have obviously suffered no past discrimination in the United States, members of the Fanjul family from Cuba.with a fortune exceeding $500 million.have received government contracts set aside for minority businesses. An absolute majority of the money paid to minority-owned construction firms in Washington, D.C., during the period from 1986 to 1990 went to European businessmen from Portugal. Asian entrepreneurs have likewise immigrated to the United States and then acquired preferential access to government contracts. Such results once again demonstrate how far the reality of affirmative action departs from its rationale of remedying past discrimination.

Although affirmative action began as a program primarily intended to benefit blacks, most of the minority and women-owned businesses favored by government preferences are owned by groups other than blacks. More than four times as many businesses are owned by Hispanics and Asian Americans and thirteen times as many businesses are owned by women as by blacks. Moreover, even within this omnibus category of minority and women-owned businesses, some evidence suggests that the vast majority of firms receive nothing from these preferences, while a relatively few receive the bulk of the benefits. In Cincinnati, for example, the city vendor list identified 682 such firms, but 13 percent of these firms received 62 percent of all the preferential contracts and 83 percent of the money. Nationally, only about one-fourth of one percent of minority-owned enterprises were even certified as entitled to preferences under the Small Business Administration. Then, even among this tiny fraction of minority firms, 2 percent received 40 percent of the money."
--Thomas Sowell 2004. Affirmative Action Around the World. p 121

White university "legacy" admissions use quota-like preferential politices to benefit mostly whites, while at the same time white hypocritically condemn so-called "quotas for blacks" that are trivial in relation to the numbers of whites benefiting from such preferential policies.

As far as college admissions wealthy whites easily buy their way into elite colleges as shown in detail by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Daniel Golden in his book The Price of Admission: How America’s Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges—and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates. Golden shows how mediocre or low-ranked whites get access due to their parent's wealth. He also shows how minorities are penalized when "athletic scholarships" are given to wealthy whites for participating in relativelylow interest sports that generate significantly less interest (or revenue) than mainstream sports. As he says:

"Colleges discriminate against minorities and low- and middle-income students by reserving slots—and, outside the Ivy League, scholarships—for athletes in sports only rich white people tend to play."

White unions in another apartheid state, South Africa, also moved massively and violently to impose racial cartels. The huge 1922 "Rand Revolt" or strike by white miners because 25 blacks were hired for so-called "reserved white jobs" illustrates this. Authorities wee forced to expend massive resources to suppress the white workers' strike. Quote:"In January 1922 white mine workers on the Rand went on strike over the opening of 25 semi-skilled positions, previously reserved for whites, to blacks. As 80 percent of white mine workers were Afrikaners, a nationalist newspaper urged members of the Active Citizen Force to ignore the call-up. Inspired by a mixture of socialist and Boer republican ideals, the strikers organized commandos, practiced military drill, prepared stretcher parties, and fashioned uniforms. The state mobilized 7,966 police but this was insufficient. Striker commandos erected road blocks, raided mines and police stations, and hunted down and murdered over 40 blacks. Smuts, now prime minister, mobilized the Active Citizen Force and on March 10 proclaimed martial law on the Rand and nearby areas. Fourteen thousand Permanent and Citizen Force soldiers were sent to suppress the strikers who military commanders referred to as 'revolutionaries.'

In the subsequent fighting, the rebels initially seemed successful as they held Brakpan and were contesting control of Benoni and Springs. Airplanes from the fledgling South African Air Force (SAAF) strafed the Workers’ Hall in Benoni and dropped supplies to besieged police stations. An airplane carrying the air force director, Colonel Pierre van Ryneveld, was shot down though he survived. Rebels attacked a detachment of Imperial Light Horse at Doornfontein and the Transvaal Scottish, on its way by rail to the East Rand, was ambushed at Dunswart suffering heavy casualties. A state counterattack began on March 12 with the seizure of Brixton Ridge and the next day General Van Deventer led the relief of police stations at Brakpan and Benoni. On March 14, artillery shelled the striker stronghold at Fordsburg Square that was captured later that day. The strike was called off on March 17. This ‘‘Rand Revolt’’ seemed much like a war. Overall, 153 people, including 29 police, were killed and 534 injured. After the rebellion, 4,750 people were arrested and 18 sentenced to death of which 4 were actually executed. The police seized 1 machine gun, 1,400 rifles and shotguns, 745 revolvers, and 60,000 rounds of ammunition.

Smuts was blamed for letting the situation get out of control, and in the 1924 election he was defeated by a nationalist and labor coalition under Hertzog.11Racial segregation was further entrenched and in the 1930s South Africa, like other dominions, gained more autonomy from Britain and the Cape’s nonracial franchise was abolished."-- Timothy J. Stapleton. 2010. A Military History of South Africa From the Dutch-Khoi Wars to the End of Apartheid, p 135-136